Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion to take note of the explanations, extremely brief and dismissive as they were. Minister Colbeck effectively said: 'The dog ate my homework; can I have an extension, please?' I don't think anyone really thinks that tomorrow he will front up with those documents. So what's this extension for? It's to give them another 24 hours to find a different way of saying, 'Soz, we're not going to give you the documents you've asked for, because this government can't hack transparency.' That's what happened yesterday, when this place sought to have the Gaetjens report tabled. Historically, similar reports have, in fact, been tabled, even though they were politically inconvenient to the government at the time. This is a new and very, very scary precedent that this government is now setting in that it is defying the will of the Senate and not voluntarily disclosing documents of this nature.

Cabinet-in-confidence was claimed yesterday—perhaps they're going to say that again tomorrow—but it's very interesting when you look at what the cabinet-in-confidence convention actually states. You can't just wheel a document through the cabinet room and say that it's cabinet-in-confidence. We all know that happens, but it's not meant to work that way. You're meant to have actually deliberated it. I had a look at the ministerial standards, because they are called 'the Prime Minister's ministerial standards'—you can be forgiven for thinking that they have no standards, but there is technically a document called 'the Prime Minister's ministerial standards'. They don't mention the cabinet. There is no formal role for the cabinet to have anything to do with the enforcement of the Prime Minister's ministerial standards. So I say to the government: if you are genuinely claiming cabinet-in-confidence, why was the cabinet even discussing this matter? This is an immense politicisation of what is a rort that goes all the way to the top. We know it goes all the way to the top, not because this government has disclosed the documents that will prove that but because someone leaked those documents to the media.

It's very telling that Minister Colbeck needs more time to find a document that the press gallery have already got. They've already got the spreadsheet. The ABC had that weeks ago. I think it was Network Ten that got the emails which show that, in fact, it was the Prime Minister's office telling then Minister McKenzie that we needed some changes—I think 'slight change' was the phrase that was used. So is it any wonder that the Prime Minister has made former minister Bridget McKenzie take the fall? He's protecting himself. It doesn't escape anybody's notice that there have been all sorts of corruption allegations made by other frontbenchers—none of them have had to pay the price, but we see a senior woman in the government ranks paying the price. She's been the fall girl for the Prime Minister's dodginess.

We'll all wait and see, and we'll hear the explanation tomorrow when Minister Colbeck and Minister Cormann rock up and say: 'We can't tell you, because, gee, it would actually implicate our top guy. We know he's not really popular right now, and we don't really want to make that any worse.' What an embarrassment. I don't think the Prime Minister can really continue to dismiss this lack of accountability as just 'the Canberra bubble'. I don't really think 'the Canberra bubble' ever held much sway with the public. I certainly don't think that dismissing the premise of the question is going to cut it much longer, because the public are dismissing the premise of this government. This is an illegitimate government. It scraped back in with a one-seat majority, and it scraped back in by misusing public funds to buy election outcomes. That was essentially what the Auditor-General found, and so of course the Prime Minister is scurrying to blame someone else to cover up his involvement in this whole fiasco. This is a deeply embarrassing moment for his government. He's had quite a few of those lately, but this is perhaps the most challenging.

We've all known that rorting goes on, but this time the Prime Minister's been caught out directing it. He's continuing to fail to take any responsibility for his own office's involvement in this debacle, and he's been happy to let heads roll in the National Party to try to distract from the deep lack of transparency and accountability that permeates this entire administration. It debases all of us in this place, and it's a massive insult to the public. I was no fan of John Howard, but at least they put the children overboard report in the public domain. They knew it would be inconvenient and politically damaging, but they still did it. The standards used to be pretty low, but it seems now that there are no standards.

This government is completely out of touch and will not ever, it seems, abide by any sort of transparency or accountability. It makes a mockery of this place, and it makes a mockery of this government. This is exactly why we need these so-called Prime Minister's ministerial standards to actually be independently enforced—to be enforced at all would be a good start, but to be independently enforced is clearly what's needed here, because the Prime Minister's just got his old mate, who was his chief of staff and now runs his department, to say: 'Oh, no, this other independent statutory body is wrong. Everything's fine and, no, we're not going to actually tell you why. We're just going to make this assertion.' This whole government is farcical. There's no independent enforcement of those standards. There's no accountability. And we saw insult added to injury yesterday when the Prime Minister would not even let his party members vote on a motion that would bring on a bill to establish a federal anticorruption watchdog. Not only can they not even enforce their own ministerial standards but they do not want a federal corruption watchdog. What are they afraid of—another scandal tomorrow and a scandal the day after that? They clearly love being in the headlines, but it's for all of the wrong reasons. What are they trying to hide by blocking the establishment of a strong independent corruption watchdog that could oversee these sorts of scandals?

It's very interesting that commentators have looked at the so-called design principles for the government's corruption watchdog—which are a year old and which haven't progressed beyond 'design principles', but be that as it may—and the view is that, on those design principles, the government's body wouldn't even have been able to look at the conduct of then Minister McKenzie, of the Prime Minister himself, of Minister Taylor, for that matter, or of former ministers Pyne and Bishop in taking pretty dodgy post-parliamentary employment. How convenient for this government to delay a federal corruption watchdog at all, and, secondly, to be designing one that will effectively facilitate cover-ups of their own government's dodginess. How convenient to have a corruption watchdog that is deliberately designed to have no teeth, and, frankly, to be asleep.

So we've had a 16-month delay on an independent body. The proposals that we know about are going to be weak. They would be tantamount to a protection racket for the corruption that is at the heart of this government. Then they didn't even have the guts to let their people vote on a motion to bring on a bill that would set up a strong corruption watchdog: one that had teeth; one that was properly resourced, that was independent, that could take tip-offs from the public, that could cover dodgy ministerial conduct, that could hold hearings in public—a corruption watchdog that could actually do the job of cleaning up politics and cleaning up the corruption that now so signifies this government. They didn't want that to come to a vote because they were a bit worried that some of their Nationals 'friends' might cross the floor. So they gag debate and they put it off into the long grass. We'll now probably never see a vote on that bill, which has passed this place with the support—or, at least, the abstention, in the case of One Nation—of all non-government senators. Once again, this government is totally out of step with everybody else in this building. It's trying to say, 'La, la, la, la, la. There's nothing to see.' Well, nobody buys it anymore. You can't just keep asking for an extension and then claiming cabinet-in-confidence.

Is it any wonder that trust in democracy is at an all-time low? This government needs to wake up and bear responsibility for that fact and then do something about it. I don't like this government. I think their policies stink. I think they've got no values and no ethics. But I do think that the institution of government deserves to be respected by the public. The government should act like it deserves respect. I am disturbed by that lack of confidence and trust in government as an institution. That is a recipe for civil unrest. It doesn't get any problems fixed. It enables this government to continue to act, frankly, with the air of fascism. And we're better than that. Australians deserve better than that. Bring on the next election. It can't come soon enough. We cannot wait to see this mob sitting on the other side of the chamber. We hope that the next mob will take integrity more seriously.

We're very pleased that there was support for the Greens' strong corruption watchdog proposal, which passed this Senate. But it should not just sit on the back of the Notice Paper in the House while this government continues to act with impunity and while rorts after rorts continue to plague this government and it continues to think that it can just get away with it by saying, 'It's the Canberra bubble,' and that it doesn't accept the premise of the question.

We've got a motion that's coming on later today, with some very serious consequences for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Like I'm sure the other folk in this chamber all have, I have thought deeply about whether it is appropriate to sanction the Leader of the Government in the Senate, because it's a pretty big step to say, 'You can't actually represent the Prime Minister anymore in this place.' I think that's probably the biggest step. It might seem insignificant to members of the public, but it's a pretty big deal in here to do that. The significance of this continued cover-up and this continued rorting of public money and the absolute arrogance and impunity the government continues to have over this situation means they're reaching new lows. We'll move today to potentially sheet that home to Minister Cormann in this place.

The Prime Minister needs to act like a Prime Minister and actually take some responsibility. The public likes it when people admit they have made a mistake and that they have learned from it and then get back on with the job. But this Prime Minister, if he's not going on holidays when the country is burning, if he's not then belatedly trying to send the forces out to help put the fires out, is simply saying, 'There's nothing to see here; this is the Canberra bubble.' The public deserve so much better. We can't take any more of this Prime Minister. Stop the spin, start acting with the dignity that your role is meant to bestow upon you, and just bring in a corruption watchdog that's going to clean up your mob. Nothing less will suffice. All of these claims of cabinet-in-confidence and, 'We're not going to tell you; it's not in the public interest to tell you,' just don't cut it any more. Continue on being the corrupt, self-interested, dodgy government if you like, but you're going to bear the consequences and they couldn't come soon enough.